Constitution Bench Judge Musarrat Hilali questioned the rationale behind the transfer of 103 Pakistan Tehreek-E-Insaf workers for military custody out of the 5,000 arrested on May 9. She conducted the investigation under a legal appeal against the trial against civilians in military court.

She asked if the charges filed against those whose trial were made in anti-terrorism court specifically whether they were also facing allegations of ransacking military installations.

The constitutional bench led by justice Amin Ud-Din Khan and consists of justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi, heard Justice Musarrat Hilali, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan the case.

PTI founder Imran Khan’s lawyer Uziir Bhandari, who promotes his arguments, said the provisions of the constitution should be investigated to decide what is allowed.

He argued that ordinary changes cannot violate fundamental rights. He quoted Justice Jamal Mandokhail as saying that the status of armed forces under Article 83-A should be taken into account, and adds the Army Act do not contain any provisions other than section 2 (1D1).

Justice Mandokhail replied that Article 243 is already applying. In response, Bhandari pointed out that Justice Mandokhail’s previous judgments on the case were available and emphasized that a confession of the defendant is important. He argued that apart from the court match, no other provision could be used.

Justice Amin Out-Din Khan noted that it is not necessary to use Court Martial. Bhandari claimed it is not that simple when the FB Ali case managed the status. It will be applied to any relevant member under the law. Those with section 2 (1D1) do not fall below 83-A. If included, there will be no need to consider fundamental rights. The action of the army only relates to discipline, he said.

Justice Amin noted that the employees who came under Section C need not have to take an oath. Bhandari argued that employees in Section C cannot perform the court match and adds that it is always performed by officers.

Justice Amin noted that the members of the armed forces would determine the crime. Bhandari argued that the nature of the crime does not violate fundamental rights.

Justice Aminuddin Khan asked what will happen if someone falls under section 2 (1D1). Bhandari claimed that the justice system cannot be knocked down on this basis and added, “Our point is that civilians cannot be exposed to the court’s martial arts.” At one of the previous hearings, a member of the constitutional bench had questioned what could happen if a country violated international laws.

“What would be the consequence if international laws are not followed?” Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked Salman Akram Raja, the lawyer of one of the May 9 rebels facing the trial in a military court.

Under arguments on behalf of his client, Salman Akram Raja said that civilians cannot be warned as it means removing them from their fundamental rights. He said the court match also violates international standards of a fair trial.

“International standards require litigation to be held in open courts carried out independently and transparent. According to international law, litigation decisions must be made public, he said.